• twinnie@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    116
    ·
    1 day ago

    At the bottom of the article it cites that they have the right to refund if they can’t repair or replace, but since they’ve shown plenty of stock in their own store they can replace. He also cites their own policy which reads “refund the then current market value of the Product”.

    • paper_moon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      74
      ·
      edit-2
      24 hours ago

      Agreeing with you here, they probably had the last line there to save themselves money, as historically tech items lose value over time, so if you bought an ssd for $200, and 6 months later needed to be replaced or refunded, historically they can realistically offer you $150, as that would traditionally be the new market value after 6 months, but in today’s timeline, now its apparently worth $900 and they probably don’t want to pay that.

      Samsung hurt itself in confusion

      • Zephorah@discuss.online
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        23 hours ago

        And yet data center investors are running on the presentation of the hardware being used as not depreciating in value.

    • malloc@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      13 hours ago

      I wonder if these repair companies that Samsung outsources to have internal metrics to keep payouts or replacements as low as possible.

      Gaslight the customer into returning and agreeing to a “refund at original cost”. Do this X number of times for contract bonuses or something.

      • JcbAzPx@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 hours ago

        Thing is, original cost was usually higher than current market value. It’s only recently that has started biting them in the ass.